Change Your Image
darling137
Reviews
War Machine (2017)
An amusing but tossed salad of a film
"War Machine" satirically depicts a fictionalized version of Stanley McChrystal,, the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) from his arrival in country to (spoiler) his sacking by the president..
The production value is excellent, with a lot of recognizable faces, many of them big (Pitt, Kingsley, and even a cameo by Russell Crowe). It uses real military and Afghan-specific military gear (how it got US Army support, I'll never know) and even gets the uniforms of coalition allies right. For vets, however, prepare to roll your eyes at the obligatory use of the salute as the perceived highest honor a military member can make.
The source material is the late Michael Hastings' book which I have not read, but having read his infamous Rolling Stone article on McChrystal, the figurative tone and voice of the narrator (based on Hastings) seems about right, cynical and contemptuous of his subject. Unless you lean way to the left or simply not a supporter of military use in Afghanistan, the narration gets pretty preachy and even downright wrong (about the success rate of insurgencies, for example),a somewhat unnecessary distraction.
Even for satire, where personalities are flattened and exaggerated and action is simplified, this film still struggles to add even a little depth. Pitt spends most of the film either looking confused, squinting, or saying "with all due respect". Anthony Michael Hall seems to just sneer, swear, and yell. Of course, Americans, particularly the military, are naively optimistic and openly disrespectful of other nationalities and their commander in chief. And wars and warfare can be summed up in glib and ideological oversimplifications.
The story manages to hit a bunch of themes and subject matters. There is commentary on the American way of war, the impact of deployments on marriage, the wisdom of military intervention, the politics of coalition building, and the dynamics of leadership. But the manner in which it chooses to do this constantly shifts.
I think it strives to be a dark comedy, but therein lies its ultimate shortfall. It doesn't know what it wants to be. Which is a shame because the funny parts are sincerely funny (Pitt's character defending the honor of his Afghan aide-de-camp as "the only Afghan in the room", Pitt and his White House (or SecDef?) civilian contact trying to end a video conference, and Ben Kingsly's hilarious (however infrequent) take on President Karzai all come to mind.) But the tone itself is multiple personalities. While it is always mocking (as satires are supposed to be) and skeptical, sometimes it's cutting to the bone, other times very light and whimsical, still other times deeply serious. I won't make the Roger Ebert mistake of speculating what the movie could have been about, but it seems to slink between being (1) a strident anti-military/anti-war/anti-America polemic or (2) a humorous parody of power and bureaucracy or (3) a character assassination of Stanley McChrystal.
It's a watchable and entertaining film with a good look, lots of questions, and steady acting. At end, however, I feel like the conflicted character Marine corporal Billy Cole who states his dilemma, which incidentally is restated in the song playing over the end credits, "I'm confused." Yep, so is the movie and so am I.
The Yes Men Fix the World (2009)
Clever but not too funny
Yes Men Fix the World is much less a documentary than it is an attempt at comedy in the spirit of Borat or Dog Bites Man. The two principals are hoaxters who pass themselves off as government or corporate spokesman on television or at conferences, focusing on the Union Carbide disaster in Bhopal,India and Hurricane Katrina.
Most of the entertainment comes with the ease at which they are invited to speak publicly, the shock and shtick of their outrageous speech and presentation, and the subsequent discovery of the hoax. They pull off the deception masterfully and, save for the odd inquisitive reporter or genuinely interested attendee, their audiences are either amused, confused or completely uninterested.
What is distracting and ultimately confusing about the film is their modus operandi and their justification for their actions. It is hard to tell if they are carnival barkers just out to make a buck at the expense of unsuspecting corporate types and television anchors or they are genuine activists using this medium to draw attention to causes they think deserve it.
If it is the former, we can credit them for pulling a fast one but the gag from revealing their props and proposals wears off rather quickly. That they only complete four pranks makes for a lot of unfunny filler material. Also, if humor is the intent, it is a very preachy humor in which corporations and, strangely enough, economist Milton Friedman are demonized and simplistic moral outrage is celebrated.
If it is the latter, they seem to be blissfully unaware of the impact (and slight hypocrisy) of raising the hopes of victims of a tragedy in the name of sheer attention. And it may have been inconveniently timed that they chose to focus on Friedman's quotes on crises being the catalyst for change in a year that the White House chief of staff was quoted making the same points.
What we get is a short collection of pranks, not as juvenile as Borat but not as subtle as Dog Bites Man, with some interesting audience reactions and a self-righteous tone ("We didn't lie, we told the truth") If your political views are left of center you most likely enjoy this movie more than center and center-right folks. While Ebert is my only movie review source, given his political views I wasn't too surprised he gave three stars to such a mediocre film.
By the People: The Election of Barack Obama (2009)
Captures the Spirit
Like most HBO documentaries it is well structured, paced perfectly and visually appealing. I like documentaries anyway and I realize they all have a bias or an agenda and this is no different. Clearly the film puts Obama's amazing campaign in the best possible light. Good news is shown in real time with reactions from the candidate himself while bad news (Ayers, Wright, previous races and experience, etc) is shown in retrospect or downplayed.
What makes the film good is also its Achilles Heel. Following the candidate from just before he decides to run, we see the people around Obama more than the candidate himself and get a glimpse of the times in which his campaign and subsequent election take place. Both effectively place the campaign in context. People were showing up in record numbers and hadn't been this excited about a candidate probably since JFK. The film effectively captures the magic (and hysteria) that infected Democrats and influenced enough independents.
I am no fan of the man as president, so I also have a post-disposition (as opposed to a predisposition), so it was hard to warm up to the man to begin with. But the doc doesn't reveal much more about him than we already know. He's calm, cool, collected, has a nice and attractive family, and speaks well...exactly how he's described today. By concentrating on his advisors and fans we get insight into the effect his election had on people but not no particular insight on how he deals with his staff, what he really cares about, or, with little exception, how he acts under adversity. One point that stands out is his surprising defeat in NH which he maintains (how long afterward we don't know)was a good thing. Ever the spin master, we see him only as the consummate politician without much of a hint of how much the setback bothered him as a person.
Perhaps, after his administration is walking out the door of its last term, the makers will give us more of a taste of who the "real" Barack Obama is with the extra footage in a second installment. For now we will settle for a little of "behind the scenes" of the most electric campaign of the last 30 years.
Bottle Shock (2008)
Lousy attempt at a great story
I fell into the trap of expecting something good, if not great, of this movie. Though not a Bill Pullman fan, I thought his subtle acting style might work. Though I had no interest in the subject matter (I don't drink wine), I became interested in the historical context. And I liked Freddy Rodriguez in Six Feet Under.
It didn't feel like a major motion picture to me, more like a made-for-TV one or even an MTV rock video (do they still make those?) Too many scenes seemed like they were trying to write it for the period music of the film (like the hose cleaning scene which reminded me too much of Cool Hand Luke) or at the very least they put in music where none was needed.
The dialogue and characters were boring. The romantic subplots seem forced and come out of no where. The racist and classist references are trite and seem obligatory.
found myself not caring one bit about any of the main characters mostly because we knew so little about them whether it's the struggling vineyard owner, the idealistic intern, the son-of-an-immigrant field hand, or the lazy son. The back stories are minimal at best and/or come to late in the movie. The possible exception is Spurrier, the "academy" owner, who is ably played by Alan Rickman. While he's a condescending British wine snob, he is at least open minded and fair.
If anything I felt disdain for most of the characters. The intern, in true Pearl Harbor fashion, jumps from one guy to another (ok, this is 1976 but still...). Rodriguez's character, in one scene, goes from being an apologetic worker (for entering his dad's wine in the contest) to and indignant class warfare monger (calling his former boss "you people" and lecturing that one has to grow up with his hands in dirt to produce good wine). Pullman's son seems to have no redeeming value whatsoever. He is promiscuous but somehow we should feel bad when the intern hooks up with the field hand? He is lazy, spoiled, slovenly, and disrespectful yet somehow we are expected to root for him at the competition. I don't think so.
And that is what was missing from the film, any tension or buildup for the historic significance of French wines being removed from their assumed pedestal of superiority. The contest almost feels like an after thought, like "We should throw this in, in case people are wondering why an Englishman working in France is wandering around the fields of Napa." I generally try to avoid Roger Ebert's tendency, however infrequent, of complaining about what *should have been* in a movie, but here I cannot. The subject matter almost begs for it.
My rating is based on a true bell curve, so it should be said that the film is very watchable, although I found Rickman's and Dennis Farrina's acting and scenes are noteworthy. And the wide shots of Napa Valley are gorgeous. And part of any rating is due to the level of expectations, so perhaps if I had gone in with lower ones, it would rate higher. All in all, it was very mediocre, not bad, but not memorable either.
Morning Joe (2007)
Early Morning Politics
After reading the other commentary on this program, I came to realize that most of the authors were most likely burdened and overly concerned with the resentment of having a former Republican Congressman on the left of center MSNBC than they were reviewing the show.
If you want the early morning headlines and some diverse political commentary without the fluff of other morning shows, then you just may well enjoy this one.
It is true that Joe Scarborough takes a little getting used to. He is opinionated, sometimes overbearing, and at times rude. He is also well versed in politics, insightful, fair, and able to reduce the complexities of political matters so that Everyman can relate to them without dumbing down the content.
Mika, daughter of foreign affairs expert Zbigniew Brzezinski, is a good foil for Joe, quick to provide an alternative viewpoint or food for thought. Joes steps on her toes sometimes (one reviewer laughingly declared him sexist, citing a time when he took a newspaper out of his hand) but she is easy going and plays her role well. After all, it is called Morning Joe and not Mornings with Joe and Mika.
Willie Geist plays third string, a back ground for most of the political conversation, but contributes nonetheless. He reprises his role on the defunct Tucker show by introducing News You Can't Use.
Despite the assertions of some, the guests they have a varied and frequently political giants. You won't have to worry about seeing the mother of child who appeared on YouTube or the lawyer of a stripper being sued as guests on this show. While Buchanan or Shuster makes appearances, the likes of Bernie Goldberg, Brent Scrowcroft, Joe Biden and Phil Donahue (today's lineup) show up to push their books or talk current events.
While not for everyone, especially if your idea of political insight is Keith Olbermann lecturing the President night after night, Morning Joe is three hours of political opinion and insight most of us could use.
Clear Cut: The Story of Philomath, Oregon (2006)
What documentaries should be
Concur with the first recorder that this film illustrates what good documentaries should do: provide enough information from all the angles without bias and let the observer decide for him or herself.
All of the parties are intelligent, articulate and unburdened by melodramatic flair. Any of them could be our neighbors, relatives or kids and Philomath emerges as a kind of Everytown, USA.
I will say that I don't see some of the points that the original commentator picks up on. I missed a few minutes while watching but apparently missed Mr Lowther's "latent violence". His "tar and feather" comment is a much more a reference to "the old days" than a threat of violence. Mr Lowther doesn't hang himself but, like the other interviewees, simply states very clearly what he believes in.
You will agree or disagree with Mr Lowether based on your own values system and/or political beliefs, but there is no denying that a charitable foundation certainly has the right to decide to whom it gives its money. In short, public schools should not have agendas but all private institutions have them.
Also, his criticism of the fact finding meeting is well founded. As we saw during the OJ Simpson trial and from many a congressional hearing, that public hearings can easily degenerate into popularity contests and circuses, in which politicians bloviate and pander to the majority.
The title is a well chosen one. It's a pun that obviously refers to the town's historical heritage and less obviously a contradictory reference to the two sides in this debate. In Clear Cut, the protagonists and antagonists are anything but. In the end, there are no bad guys, but just a running commentary about the continuous evolution and shifting sands of each and every community in the country.
Sound and Fury (2000)
Another worthwhile documentary
I really enjoy documentaries, especially ones that don't have an axe to grind. Though I have no particular interest in the "deaf culture" (my exposure has been limited to a bunch of deaf folks who are in a dart league at the local sports pub), I was drawn into this documentary.
Like another reviewer noted, I found myself getting a little emotional at the end. In fact, throughout the movie I was emotionally involved with a subject matter I would never thought I would.
I was struck by the elitist nature of a certain element of the deaf community. Many of the deaf people in the film were extremely antagonistic toward anything that would remove deafness or a deaf person from their community. While this is understandable, I found it extremely selfish. Not only were many in complete denial that deafness inhibited their quality of life whatsoever (are we still allowed to use the word handicapped???), some considered it superior to the "hearing world." I noted with irony that many of the deaf family members at the picnic who were so repulsed by the idea of a cocklear implant were wearing glasses; obviously they considered being born with or having deteriorating eyesight something in need of fixing. Their attitude reminded me of other defensive groups such as un(der)educated parents (hey, I did OK, why does my son need to go to college) or racial minorities (oh, you just want to make her "white").
Even without the controversial subject of the cocklear implant this is a great study in generations as it is the old story of parents either wanting their kids (adult kids) wanting them to either be like them or to have it better than they had it.
King Kong (2005)
Decent but doesn't live up to the hype
On it's own merit, this King Kong remake is an entertaining and delight to the senses. However expectations come with films and much hype accompanied this one. Unfortunately, despite the fresh faces and updated special effects, the end result comes off as just another remake that doesn't approach the hype associated with it.
For the most part, the special effects are great. The realistic movements and facial expressions of Kong himself are simply amazing. To even the most cynical and jaded, it's easy to forget that one is watching a computer generated creature, which would seem to fit in with something on Animal Planet or the National Geographic channel.
Likewise, the recreation of Depression-era New York City, from street car level streets to biplane wide-angle skyline is a wondrous and incredibly detailed.
Still, man cannot live on imagery alone. The time-honored plot is retained but the depth and acting is as vaudevillian and hokey as the original seems in retrospect.
Even the 1975 version seemed to answer the why's of what motivated the characters better than this one. The play as stereotypes who, like the plot suggests about love, are doomed to fill their respective roles.
Black is adequate at playing the opportunistic director. All we know is he cares about making a buck and not trying to give out too much of it. At least he stays within his abilities.
Brody is flat and shallow as the nearly indestructible screenwriter Driscoll who is surprisingly heroic for a man who makes a living behind a typewriter. He dodges dinosaurs, grapples giant insects, tracks down the maiden to a sky high cliff, lures the 25 foot gorilla with a taxi cab, and shows up atop the Empire State Building just in time.
Watts has a handful of lines, it seems, but most of the last 2/3 of the flick she spends either screaming or staring with moistened eyes.
The minor characters are either just carrion for the monsters or overly dramatic symbols
By far, the most distracting aspects of the film is the lack of detail, lack of realism, and confusing actions/reactions by the characters. Sure this is just popcorn for the soul but to achieve a level of suspense of disbelief, there must be an attempt to make it believable. And believability, ladies and gentlemen, like the devil, lie in the details.
For a woman who can look a roaring giant ape in the eye and dangle from a ladder on a skyscraper, it's interesting to note Watts' paralysis on seeing a 5 foot centipede. The excessive convenience (dangling vines, sudden attack of giant bats, calming of waters, etc) all appear as a filler for lack of imagination on the writer's part. The multitasking Kong (fighting and catching Watts whenever she falls) in his battle with the T-rex's is a case of too much. The confusing ebb of time from shipwreck to cast off leaves one wondering where the day went. I'm always amazed how humans in film-land will try to outrun chasing/stampeding animals in a straight line and almost aways succeed, all without being out of breath. The coordinated attack by giant bugs which are systematically shot off with a submachine is just as hokey as Rambo killing hundreds of Vietnamese or Russians while shooting from the hip. The dinosaurs and other creatures of Skull island just don't act like animals do. TRexes snipping at a human while in a life or death struggle with a huge ape or hunting humans when their mouths are already full is just cartoonish. The apparent overabundance of prey and predator on a secluded island is proof of trying to cram the screen with dinosaurs (a fault of the Jurassic Park sequels) The unfortunate consequence of CGI is that the tendency is to assume that more is more and many of the scenes seem as either afterthoughts or obligatory use of imagery. I found myself asking question after question: Why did the captain risk the lives of all of his crew to save a woman presumably devoured by a giant gorilla? How did the native manage to effortlessly pole vault onto a shipping heaving to and fro? How did these guys manage to get around the island like it was their backyard?
While visually masterful, the cardboard cutouts of human characters intermingled with the overpopulated and overactive giant creature population, all interacting unrealistically with each other was distracting enough to remind me that, much like that other giant hero, Godzilla, it appears that King Kong --as Black's character seems to predict-- is forever doomed for B-movie status.
Gunner Palace (2004)
Great subject, OK movie
Just to see a documentary on the battle for Iraq is refreshing. The nightly news coverage, with that 30 second loop of whatever-happens-to-be-going-on while some anchorman or reporter drones on endlessly about what some talking heads in the Pentagon, state department, opposition group or the White House, are to this movie what MTV is to a serious news magazine.
The drama is 1000 times more real than any reality TV and therefore it's entertaining. Soldiers being soldiers, without a script or other parameters are insightful, I suspect, for the average viewer, particularly the American viewer, who most likely doesn't have an inkling what the military, much less war, is like. The soldiers are candid, mostly young, intelligent, interesting and articulate, which should be no surprise as they are a cross section of America.
The crew do a good job of bringing out the points of view as things happen, whether it be a raid, a public protest, or a casualty which gives us a solid look and feel to what these artillerymen experience.
Still the documentary is rather flat. Although the crew counts down the days until the unit departs Iraq, there is no flow to the film. Things happen and soldiers and Iraqis provide commentary. There are no themes or dividers (which was probably intentional) so the film has no sense of time and is amorphous.
The drama rarely builds and when something does happen the most dramatic aspect seems to be the narrators voice (I tend to think he doesn't talk like this normally). There's a solemn moment when one of the unit's officers dies. While the way and time the narrator finds out is itself sad, we can't really empathize because the individual is hardly mentioned prior to his death. Maybe it was out of consideration of his family and friends, but although we learn the narrator and he were close, this information only comes to us after the fact. The poetry and rapping provide the majority of the music and, regardless of the talent of the soldiers who do it, it becomes a little stale and somewhat out of place. Granted, we've become accustomed to associating 60's music with Vietnam, but there has to be something a little more representative of Iraq's "sound".
If you are looking for more than what's offered on the news as to what occupation duty in Iraq is like, this will do the trick. If you are looking for a fascinating and well structured documentary, look elsewhere.
Black Hawk Down (2001)
An Audio/Visual Triumph
Ridley Scott does a superb job of bringing Mark Bowden's piece to life. Scott is the elite of the manipulators of sound and sight. He not only takes you to the battle, he places you there. Complimented by todays surround sound theaters, one becomes immersed in his angles and bytes, woven magnificently into a well-told tale.
Devoid of flag waving patriotism, Scott nonetheless evokes emotion from the complicated nature of modern war. He holds true to the book, delving almost immediately into the battle after brief introductions of the principals. Though many, he does a nice job of rolling multiple folks into composite characters. After all, this is a movie, not a documentary.
Politics and patriotism are almost absent (despite the claims of many of this site's messengers); the focus is on the battle: an operation that was supposed to take one half hour but became an twelve-hour-plus marathon.
Criticism of the one-sided nature of the fight is unwarranted. The movie, like the book/articles are told from the American point of view for a reason: it was nearly impossible to find the Somali viewpoint. If anything, Scott is PC in his handling of the Somali tactics. The movie leaves out (probably due to time constraints) several damning incidents from the book such as children being used as spotters; Somali gunmen, knowing the American aversion for civilian casualties, using women as shields, and Somali females brandishing weapons while holding infants. Additionally, rumor has it that captions at the end of the flick suggesting that the results of the Battle of Mogadishu impacted American policy in Rwanda and the Balkans were pulled at the eleventh hour.
One feels the immediacy of the moment, the spinning-out-of control nature of the fight, and we are dragged along for the ride. While it is easy to pick apart the decisions of the combatants afterward, Scott appropriately reminds us that life and death decisions tend to be made on the fly, without the benefit of omniscience. Though we view the actions much like the Joint Operations Center (JOC) did, we are similarly helpless to avoid the tragedies that occur. And this is the strength of the movie: it merely tells and does not judge. There are no "aww shucks" or "we shoulda" moments only a retelling of the actions -and inactions, that influenced a small composite unit of America's fighting elite.
It is worth noting that Scott has done his homework in bringing this authenticity of "today's" military to light. Minus some theatrical "necessities" such as using name tapes on the helmet and names on the radio, the lingo, technical and tactical proficiency, and actions of the characters are militarily very accurate. The sounds of (most) of the weapons, the uniforms, and even the jargon and lingo (such as the rank sergeant being pronounced "sar'nt" rather than WWII-era "sarge") give an authentic feel to the film. Also, the macho nature of the forces involved is accurately depicted. Keep in mind we are recounting the actions of America's elite warriors, the Rangers and Delta force, not the Girl Scouts.
This movie won't get best picture for a few reasons. There are too many characters to get you too involved in any one of them and the pace of the book and movie preclude the typical highs and lows found in mainstream movie; the flick is an adrenaline-filled roller coaster only going down. If you are looking for melodrama, two-sided politics, or hokey action adventure, look elsewhere. If you want to see a pure retelling, symbolic and painstakingly told account of modern war, than don't miss Black Hawk Down.